Shield or no shield?

[CleverNickName]

I voted "Shield." Shields were a common, often necessary piece of medieval armor. Not using a shield in combat was a risk. In D&D, it is often a risk that fighters choose to take.

So let them take that risk. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? A fighter might also choose to not wear gauntlets, or a helmet, or any kind of armor at all...such a fighter *should* be much easier to hit in battle.

 

[RHGreen]

The base should be: Nothing.


Main Hand Option Bonuses (Depending on the weapon type):

Bonus to hit (elegant weapons)
Bonus to forced movement/knock downs (Hammers)
Bonus to damage (Axes)
Special abilities. (Parrying, tripping, etc.)


Off-Hand Option Bonus:

You get bonus AC for shield. (+ can forfeit to second weapon attack if needed, other action options)
You get bonus damage for 2-handed. (big sweep attack options)
You get bonus attack for second weapon.
You get bonus to hit for nothing in free hand. (+ can swing from ropes, etc.)

 

[CM]

I actually thought shields in 4e were better than ever before. Not only do you get the +2 AC bonus for heavy shields, but also, significantly, you add that to your Reflex defense. There are also a number of nice powers that work well with shields.

That didn't stop defenders in my experience from going for the big sexy 2-handed weapons though. A 4e fighter fully invested in shield use can get a pretty zany AC, when all's said and done.

 

[frankthedm]

Yes, the math should assume the front liners have the sense to use shields. Until 3E this was the assumption since the damage bump for a two handed weapon was very small compared to the value of shield AC once a shield was found with a couple "Plusses".

 

[Ed_Laprade]

In 3e and 4e, different sized shields provided +1 or +2 to AC, or +4 for tower shields in 3e. I believe Pathfinder kept this, too.


Considering the tradeoff, I would like to see small shields provide +2, large +4, and tower maybe +6, considering the tradeoffs in damage output--weight/skill check penalties have to be made worse, too. With a large shield strapped to your arm, I think it would be rather difficult to climb or swim.

A tower shield should be something you lug somewhere and set on the ground to hide behind with a ranged weapon.

 

[Derren]

Lets say it this way.

Every culture on earth, with the single exception of the Japanese, used shields.

 

[SensoryThought]

I actually thought shields in 4e were better than ever before. Not only do you get the +2 AC bonus for heavy shields, but also, significantly, you add that to your Reflex defense. There are also a number of nice powers that work well with shields.

I agree but players still realize getting a d12 damage weapon is better that longsword and shield. As most powers give multipliers to damage dice a 3W power does 6 damage more on average with the big weapon. And with 4e the readily available in-combat healing and big hp levels mean fighters don't feel the pressure to become defensive fortresses, (particularly when there are lots of feats that can give a comparable AC bonus without compromising damage output).

 

[CM]

I agree but players still realize getting a d12 damage weapon is better that longsword and shield. As most powers give multipliers to damage dice a 3W power does 6 damage more on average with the big weapon. And with 4e the readily available in-combat healing and big hp levels mean fighters don't feel the pressure to become defensive fortresses, (particularly when there are lots of feats that can give a comparable AC bonus without compromising damage output).

I agree that while 4e took strides to making the shield more useful, it still has a ways to go. The drawback to having impenetrable defenses is that eventually your enemies learn to avoid you and go for the more vulnerable party members. In movies, shields are just as often used for offense as defense--maybe if using a shield gave you an extra use of Combat Challenge each round, it would be a little more tempting?

 

[drothgery]

I think the above posters are talking two different editions

In 3E a shield could be up to +7 AC with magic, and maybe +2 from feats or the like
In 4E only +2 (maybe an additional +1 for magic, and a +1 for a feat.)


I would like to see the shield not being considered the default choice like it was in 3E, but not give much of a bonus.

Huh? Despite the smaller defensive bonuses for a shield in 4e, sword and shield is a much more optimal choice in 4e than 3e, because offense doesn't completely outrun defense in 4e. Two-handed weapon is the default choice in 3.x, and it's not really close; it's much more difficult to make the other styles work (and pre-PH2, sword and shield just doesn't work, period).

 

[marelion]

4E generally values offense higher than defense. SensoryThought was absolurtely right to point his finger at the scaling issue shields have in 4E. While the 2Handerstyle increases his advantage from level to level and the 2WeaponFighter gains the versatality of equippimg 2 possibly different weapons (and access to their properties which get a lot more powerful the more you level up).

So for D&Dnext I would like to have scaling shields as well complete with properties/special abilities. Make them enchantable and enhancable. Nobody wants to be using a "Large Shield" at epic levels, whilke his companions bragg about thei neat new "Dwarven Axes of Giant Slaying +5".

I find it pretty tough to answer the poll question though since this question depends on the balance between offense and defense. Is investing in your defense a wate of time and ressources or is it actually an equal option?

In my personal opinion the iconic fighter for D&D is the dwarven warrior with shield and axe but this thesis is a conclusion from the fluff that is not really supported by the crunch, since (especially in 4E) it pays off way better to go for the big argument-enchancers like Greataxes, Mordenkrads and Fullblades.